Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1998, page 52
factors (one of those other factors would be lack of full knowledge, see Mt. 11:20-
24). Indeed, in some such cases God still holds the individual guilty, but our point is
that he holds him less so.
2. Groothuis‘ second point is what he calls a ―crucial philosophical distinction. People
who join cults on the basis of propaganda and psychological deception do so through
their decision-making, although their decisions are ill conceived.‖ He says, ―This is
not equivalent to people losing their ability to decide because they have become
passive victims of irresistible cult indoctrination. A poor decision is still a decision to
call it a nondecision because it is unwise is even more unwise.‖ We are afraid that
Groothuis has bought into the Passantinos‘ counterfeit mind-control model.
3. We believe the Passantinos have failed to distinguish the question of guilt regarding
sin/crime from the additional matter of whether the cult member should be held fully
responsible for joining the cult, staying in the cult, accepting and obeying the
teachings of the cult leader, and ending up on the one hand confused, depressed,
anxious, or delusional, or on the other hand hostile to non-cult members,
exclusivistic, judgmental, or even heretical. Consider the following scriptures:
a. Matthew 18:6 -―But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in
Me to stumble, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his
neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea.‖
b. Matthew 18:7 -―Woe to the world because of its stumbling-blocks! For it is
inevitable that stumbling-blocks come but woe to that man through whom
the stumbling-block comes!‖
4. Our understanding of these verses is that the one who leads someone else astray
from the truth, or otherwise misleads a person, will be judged far more severely than
the one misled. And these verses are not referring to leading another into criminal
activity or sin, in general, unless one includes believing a lie in the category of sin. In
their article, the Passantinos did allow for some element of deception to exist in
some cults-but that was all, and they still seemed to hold the cult member
responsible for allowing himself to be deceived. A bit disingenuous, we believe.
5. Case No. 90CR 012, Court of Common Pleas, Lake County, Ohio. It is worth quoting
from the statement of the presiding judge at the sentencing of Danny Kraft:
a. I hope this tragedy and resulting sentence serves as a warning to all parents
and families on the destructive nature of religious cults. That we, as a society,
are mindful of the ease with which it can destroy, just as we recognize the
destructive capacity of alcohol and drugs.
6. Lundgren, a member of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
split off from the RLDS Church believing that he was a true prophet of God.
7. The fact that neither Jesus nor the Apostle Paul told the formerly demonized
individuals in these accounts to repent of their behavior while under the influence of
demons certainly implies that they did not regard them as fully responsible for the
behavior.
8. To take an obviously extreme example of such a cult, consider the Brethren, or the
―Garbage Eaters,‖ as they are more commonly known, led by Jim Roberts, a.k.a.
Brother Evangelist. They believe they are more ―spiritual‖ than others because (for
one thing) they seek not to depend on the ―sinful‖ world to meet their needs --
hence their ―dumpster diving,‖ that is, scavenging for edible food in dumpsters
behind restaurants and grocery stores. Can anyone conceive of someone in his or
her right mind ―choosing‖ to live this way? If these people, most of whom were not
only relatively normal but also high achievers before joining, are not under the
leader‘s control, what else can account for their behavior? They are certainly not
making rational, informed decisions. They have been led to believe that this kind of
lifestyle is truly righteous and holy. After all, they are not being conformed to the
world and its systems. It seems to us that ―simple deception‖ is inadequate to
factors (one of those other factors would be lack of full knowledge, see Mt. 11:20-
24). Indeed, in some such cases God still holds the individual guilty, but our point is
that he holds him less so.
2. Groothuis‘ second point is what he calls a ―crucial philosophical distinction. People
who join cults on the basis of propaganda and psychological deception do so through
their decision-making, although their decisions are ill conceived.‖ He says, ―This is
not equivalent to people losing their ability to decide because they have become
passive victims of irresistible cult indoctrination. A poor decision is still a decision to
call it a nondecision because it is unwise is even more unwise.‖ We are afraid that
Groothuis has bought into the Passantinos‘ counterfeit mind-control model.
3. We believe the Passantinos have failed to distinguish the question of guilt regarding
sin/crime from the additional matter of whether the cult member should be held fully
responsible for joining the cult, staying in the cult, accepting and obeying the
teachings of the cult leader, and ending up on the one hand confused, depressed,
anxious, or delusional, or on the other hand hostile to non-cult members,
exclusivistic, judgmental, or even heretical. Consider the following scriptures:
a. Matthew 18:6 -―But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in
Me to stumble, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his
neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea.‖
b. Matthew 18:7 -―Woe to the world because of its stumbling-blocks! For it is
inevitable that stumbling-blocks come but woe to that man through whom
the stumbling-block comes!‖
4. Our understanding of these verses is that the one who leads someone else astray
from the truth, or otherwise misleads a person, will be judged far more severely than
the one misled. And these verses are not referring to leading another into criminal
activity or sin, in general, unless one includes believing a lie in the category of sin. In
their article, the Passantinos did allow for some element of deception to exist in
some cults-but that was all, and they still seemed to hold the cult member
responsible for allowing himself to be deceived. A bit disingenuous, we believe.
5. Case No. 90CR 012, Court of Common Pleas, Lake County, Ohio. It is worth quoting
from the statement of the presiding judge at the sentencing of Danny Kraft:
a. I hope this tragedy and resulting sentence serves as a warning to all parents
and families on the destructive nature of religious cults. That we, as a society,
are mindful of the ease with which it can destroy, just as we recognize the
destructive capacity of alcohol and drugs.
6. Lundgren, a member of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
split off from the RLDS Church believing that he was a true prophet of God.
7. The fact that neither Jesus nor the Apostle Paul told the formerly demonized
individuals in these accounts to repent of their behavior while under the influence of
demons certainly implies that they did not regard them as fully responsible for the
behavior.
8. To take an obviously extreme example of such a cult, consider the Brethren, or the
―Garbage Eaters,‖ as they are more commonly known, led by Jim Roberts, a.k.a.
Brother Evangelist. They believe they are more ―spiritual‖ than others because (for
one thing) they seek not to depend on the ―sinful‖ world to meet their needs --
hence their ―dumpster diving,‖ that is, scavenging for edible food in dumpsters
behind restaurants and grocery stores. Can anyone conceive of someone in his or
her right mind ―choosing‖ to live this way? If these people, most of whom were not
only relatively normal but also high achievers before joining, are not under the
leader‘s control, what else can account for their behavior? They are certainly not
making rational, informed decisions. They have been led to believe that this kind of
lifestyle is truly righteous and holy. After all, they are not being conformed to the
world and its systems. It seems to us that ―simple deception‖ is inadequate to
